Publications

CIRA Decision No. 177

CDRP Complaint re www.twenga.ca

Decision Date: January 23, 2012

Twenga, Societe Anomyme (“TSA”) owns the registration for the mark TWENGA in Canada, which was applied for in May 12, 2008 and registered on October 25, 2011. Prior to the issuance of TSA’s registration, on October 5, 2010, the Registrant registered the Domain Name. The Registrant’s contact information was protected by the privacy rules of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (“CIRA”). In August, 2011, TSA attempted to contact the Registrant through various means including a direct request to CIRA for the release of the Registrant’s information, which was refused. After receiving no response from the Registrant, TSA filed its Complaint in November, 2011.

Read more »

For over 120 years, the question of whether the common law should recognize a cause of action in tort for the invasion of privacy has been an open debate.  The recent trend in Ontario case law was to neither confirm nor deny the cause of action, but to leave open the possibility for such a cause of action.  In Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32, the Court of Appeal for Ontario closed the debate and recognized a common law tort for invasion of privacy – a right of action for “intrusion upon seclusion”.  

Read more »

Apotex v. Sanofi-Aventis, 2011 FC 1486 (clopidogrel – PLAVIX™)

This is the latest decision of a rather significant number of decisions released over the past year or so that have construed the promise of a Canadian patent.  The patent at issue in this case was Canadian Patent No. 1,336,777 (the “`777 Patent”), a selection patent that claims:  1) clopidogrel and its salts; 2) a process for making clopidogrel; and 3) compositions containing clopidogrel.  Clopidogrel and its salts were also encompassed by the claims in the genus patent, Canadian Patent No. 1,194,875 (the “`875 Patent”).  Clopidogrel is a pro-drug and an enantiomer of the racemic compound PCR 4099.

Read more »

Following a recent Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) decision ordering Amazon.com’s “one-click” patent application to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) for expedited re-examination, CIPO has now issued notice that the application has been allowed.

Read more »

In Eli Lilly v. Novopharm, 2011 FC 1288, the Federal Court held that Eli Lilly’s patent was an invalid selection patent on the ground that there was no sound line of reasoning as of the Canadian filing date to predict that olanzapine would have the advantages promised by the patent.

Read more »